SAYED AHMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed against the order of dismissal passed by the respondents on 10/4/1994. By the aforesaid letter the Commandant 3rd Bn. imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service.

(2.) A memorandum of charges was issued against the petitioner listing two charges therein. The first charge pertained to his desertion whereas enquiry report, the disciplinary authority perused dismissing the petitioner from service. Being preferred an appeal. The appellate authority of dismissal due to procedural error and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner and to conduct a de novo enquiry on the same charges against the petitioner from the relevant stage. Pursuant to and intimated him about the said decision and furnished him all the relevant records. The Deputy Commandant, 3rd Bn. CRPP was appointed as Enquiry Officer under letter dated 19/10/1993 who enquired into the charges and conducted de novo enquiry from the relevant stage as ordered by the DIG (Personnel), CRPF. Subsequent to the aforesaid order passed by the Competent Authority the Enquiry officer conducted a de novo enquiry and thereafter submitted his findings alongwith the records to the Commandant for necessary action. The Competent Authority considered the records. On perusal of the said records he was of the opinion that the came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in the disciplined force and therefore, the impugned order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner.

(3.) The said order is challenged in this court. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not medically examined by the doctor immediately after the alleged incident. He also submitted that the accordance with the direction of the Comptent Authority while ordering for de novo enquiry.